Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 38681/08   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2011,52957
EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 38681/08 (https://dejure.org/2011,52957)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 05.07.2011 - 38681/08 (https://dejure.org/2011,52957)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 05. Juli 2011 - 38681/08 (https://dejure.org/2011,52957)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,52957) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

  • EGMR, 29.03.2001 - 38432/97

    THOMA v. LUXEMBOURG

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 38681/08
    Finally, the Court reiterates that the punishment of a journalist for assisting in the dissemination of statements made by another person would seriously hamper the contribution of the press to discussion of matters of public interest and should not be envisaged unless there are particularly strong reasons for doing so (see Jersild, cited above, § 35; Bergens Tidende and Others v. Norway, no. 26132/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-IV; and Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 62, ECHR 2001-III).
  • EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 20928/05

    PETRENCO v. MOLDOVA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 38681/08
    The Court has previously found that a person's reputation, even if that person is criticised in the context of a public debate, forms part of his personal identity and psychological integrity and thus falls within the scope of private life (see Pfeifer v. Austria, no. 12556/03, § 35, ECHR 2007-XII. See also Chauvy and Others v. France, no. 64915/01, § 70, ECHR 2004-VI; Petrina v. Romania, no. 78060/01, § 36, 14 October 2008; Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 23, 28 April 2009; Petrenco v. Moldova, no. 20928/05, § 51, 30 March 2010; and Andreescu v. Romania, no. 19452/02, § 86, 8 June 2010).
  • EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 39311/05

    KARAKO v. HUNGARY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 38681/08
    The Court has previously found that a person's reputation, even if that person is criticised in the context of a public debate, forms part of his personal identity and psychological integrity and thus falls within the scope of private life (see Pfeifer v. Austria, no. 12556/03, § 35, ECHR 2007-XII. See also Chauvy and Others v. France, no. 64915/01, § 70, ECHR 2004-VI; Petrina v. Romania, no. 78060/01, § 36, 14 October 2008; Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 23, 28 April 2009; Petrenco v. Moldova, no. 20928/05, § 51, 30 March 2010; and Andreescu v. Romania, no. 19452/02, § 86, 8 June 2010).
  • EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 76918/01

    VERLAGSGRUPPE NEWS GMBH v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 38681/08
    In this regard, the Court emphasises that a general requirement for journalists systematically and formally to distance themselves from the content of a quotation that might insult or provoke others or damage their reputation is not reconcilable with the role of the press in providing information on current events, opinions and ideas (see Thoma, cited above, § 64; and Verlagsgruppe News GmbH v. Austria, no. 76918/01, § 33, 14 December 2006).
  • EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

    JERSILD v. DENMARK

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 38681/08
    However, it has also consistently emphasised under Article 10 of the Convention the importance of the right to freedom of expression in a democratic society (see, for example, Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298; Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, 27 March 1996, § 39, Reports 1996-II; and Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 45, ECHR 2007-XI).
  • EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

    LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 38681/08
    However, it has also consistently emphasised under Article 10 of the Convention the importance of the right to freedom of expression in a democratic society (see, for example, Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298; Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, 27 March 1996, § 39, Reports 1996-II; and Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 45, ECHR 2007-XI).
  • EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

    HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 38681/08
    Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no "democratic society" (see Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24; and Von Hannover, cited above, § 58).
  • EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 34147/06

    POLANCO TORRES ET MOVILLA POLANCO c. ESPAGNE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 38681/08
    The Court explained its approach to such cases in its judgment in A. v. Norway, no. 28070/06, § 64, 9 April 2009, holding that in order for Article 8 to come into play, the attack on personal honour and reputation must attain a certain level of gravity and in a manner causing prejudice to personal enjoyment of the right to respect for private life (see Mikolajová v. Slovakia, no. 4479/03, § 55, 18 January 2011. See also Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain, no. 34147/06, §§ 40 and 44, 21 September 2010).
  • EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

    OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 38681/08
    Were it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role of "public watchdog" (see, inter alia, Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 59, Series A no. 216; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-II; and Flux v. Moldova (no. 6), no. 22824/04, § 24, 29 July 2008).
  • EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 45710/99

    VERDENS GANG and AASE v. NORWAY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 38681/08
    The Court agrees and considers it clear from the terms of the article itself, including "It [the letter written by D. and R.] explains...", "the letter alleges..." and "the letter complains..." that the journalist did not himself allege that the applicants were guilty of any offence but merely assisted in the further dissemination of the allegations by reporting them in his article (contrast and compare Verdens Gang and Aase v. Norway (dec.), no. 45710/99, ECHR 2001-X).
  • EGMR, 02.05.2000 - 26132/95

    BERGENS TIDENDE ET AUTRES c. NORVEGE

  • EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 19452/02

    ANDREESCU c. ROUMANIE

  • EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 28070/06

    A. v. NORWAY

  • EGMR, 29.07.2008 - 22824/04

    FLUX v. MOLDOVA (No. 6)

  • EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 31446/09

    TUNCER v. TURKEY

    Accordingly, the Court sees no reason to depart from its considerations in the aforementioned decisions (see also Schimanek v. Austria, (dec.) no. 32307/96, 1 February 2000, Salaman v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 43505/98, 15 June 2000 and Roberts and Roberts v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 38681/08, 5 July 2011).
  • EGMR, 03.02.2022 - 46134/09

    MAMMADOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

    Despite the possibility under domestic law to request the recusal of a judge based on the ground that he or she had already heard the case in one of the three levels of ordinary jurisdiction, the applicant's lawyer did not request, at the court hearing, the recusal of judge R.A. (compare Roberts and Roberts v. The United Kingdom (dec.), no. 38681/08, § 37, 5 July 2011, and Iancu and Others v. Romania [Committee], no. 17934/15 and 2 others, § 29, 28 September 2021).
  • EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 45630/06

    STEPNIAK v. POLAND

    The Court would not exclude the possibility that in a particular case a close relative may have a moral interest in vindicating a deceased person's right to reputation provided that the attack on reputation attained a certain level of gravity and caused prejudice to personal enjoyment of the right to respect for private life of the close relative (see Armoniene v. Lithuania, no. 36919/02, § 29, 25 November 2008; and, mutatis mutandis, Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 23, 28 April 2009; Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain, no. 34147/06, §§ 40 and 44, 21 September 2010; and Roberts and Roberts v. United Kingdom (dec.), 5 July 2011, no. 38681/08, § 40).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht